In which case, the motion is invalid because the wording hasn't been
published.
John Briggs
On 16/08/2013 13:38, CHARLES OPPENHEIM wrote:
> According to page 15 of the latest CILIP Update, just out, the motion at
> the AGM DOES require a two thirds majority to pass.
>
> Charles
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Friday, 16 August 2013, 11:45
> *Subject:* Re: A ballot on the name change
>
> So, presumably that isn't a motion to amend the Royal Charter, which
> requires a two-thirds majority, but only an Advisory Motion requiring
> a simple majority?
>
> John Briggs
>
> On 16/08/2013, Tom Roper <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> > No, it merely say,
> > *8 Re-branding*
> > *The motion to agree a change of name for the organisation*
> > *
> > *
> >
> >
> > On 15 August 2013 14:39, John Briggs <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> >> Do we know what the actual wording of the motion is? (The last time I
> >> looked, the wording wasn't on the Agenda.)
> >>
> >> John Briggs
> >>
> >> On 15/08/2013 13:56, Tom Roper wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've just had some clarification from Jill Colbert, Director of
> >>> Resources at CILIP, about the procedure for calling for a ballot of all
> >>> members. I incorrectly quoted byelaw 31. In fact the relevant byelaw is
> >>> byelaw 40:
> >>> /On the demand of one quarter of the Individual Members present in
> >>> person or by proxy and entitled to vote, the chair shall rule that the
> >>> motion be referred to a Full Ballot and that the decision of a Full
> >>> Ballot //shall be deemed to be the decision of the meeting/
> >>> I've asked for clarification on how proxies can express their wish on
> >>> this, as it won't be a motion on the order paper.
> >>> A quarter of those present or nominating proxies is a higher threshold,
> >>> which is not unreasonable, to avoid frivolous ballots. In this case it
> >>> is far from frivolous and I think there should be no difficulty
> >>> in achieving it.
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Tom Roper
> >>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> >>> http://www.roper.org.uk <http://www.roper.org.uk/>
> <http://www.roper.org.uk/>
> >>> Twitter: @tomroper
>
>
|